Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

America already has common sense gun laws. …, …, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What America needs is prosecutors to put away criminals that use Arms when committing a crime for a very, very long time.

Then take the money spent by the pro and anti gun lobbies and put it toward addressing mental health in this country and the problem of gun violence in America is solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

The most stiffest penalties on the planet implemented and enforced when one commits a crime with a firearm. It's not the weapon, it's the user, we all know this. No one blames the vehicle when it's the drunk driver. And we lose over 9k people a year to this.

[Anonymous]

Stiff penalties are a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Under 21 gun ban ruled unconstitutional. Nice!


Case is Brown v ATF

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64934350/41/brown-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/

Judgement

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471.40.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

The most stiffest penalties on the planet implemented and enforced when one commits a crime with a firearm. It's not the weapon, it's the user, we all know this. No one blames the vehicle when it's the drunk driver. And we lose over 9k people a year to this.

Many of these criminals are either killed by police or turn their gun on themselves. How are you going to punish that?

[Anonymous]

I’m really not at all interested in any more gun laws. The ones we have are ignored by criminals AND prosecutors, so what’s the point of having them? At this point, I think we should all just have whatever gun we want if a person wants a gun. I think we’re going to get a few ourselves in the weeks ahead, just need to look into some classes first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really not at all interested in any more gun laws. The ones we have are ignored by criminals AND prosecutors, so what’s the point of having them? At this point, I think we should all just have whatever gun we want if a person wants a gun. I think we’re going to get a few ourselves in the weeks ahead, just need to look into some classes first.

Agree. Besides classes, please understand the concept of “manual of arms” and let this help in your decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really not at all interested in any more gun laws. The ones we have are ignored by criminals AND prosecutors, so what’s the point of having them? At this point, I think we should all just have whatever gun we want if a person wants a gun. I think we’re going to get a few ourselves in the weeks ahead, just need to look into some classes first.

Well, if you go out and break the few gun laws we do have, I hope you have consequences. You are not special and above the laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

The most stiffest penalties on the planet implemented and enforced when one commits a crime with a firearm. It's not the weapon, it's the user, we all know this. No one blames the vehicle when it's the drunk driver. And we lose over 9k people a year to this.

That needs to include stiff penalties for the person who sold/gave/or otherwise let the criminal have the gun. And we need to give law enforcement the tools to track that relationship.

[Anonymous]

What is it with Republicans not understanding the meaning of "PER CAPITA" gun violence? They go around yapping about Chicago yet often THEIR OWN RED STATES have a higher per-capita rate of gun violence than Chicago.

Take ole Foghorn Leghorn as an example, making an ASS of himself in a hearing, for trying to attack a doctor who cited actual data on it. What an embarrasment.

https://www.newsweek.com/senator-john-kennedy-rebuked-home-state-newspaper-column-1849073

[Anonymous]

Can some Republican here explain to me how it is somehow "common sense" to allow a person like this to own a gun?

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

Police searched Rahimi’s home in January 2021. They say they found two firearms, a .45 Glock pistol and a .308 semi-automatic rifle, both of which were illegal due to the restraining order. A grand jury indicted Rahimi on charges of violating the federal law banning him from possessing firearms while under the restraining order. His public defender argued that the 1994 law was unconstitutional and that Rahimi kept the guns for self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

The case is US v. Rahimi, being argued in the Supreme Court. And there are numerous conservative groups lined up behind Rahimi to try and make sure this violent lunatic can continue to own a gun.

NRA, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Center for Human Liberty, Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Virginia Citizens Defense League, America’s Future, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and many other groups are lined up on the side of this lunatic and are dumping a huge amount of money into his case.

These groups CAN NO LONGER go around saying they support gun rights and gun ownership for responsible, law abiding citizens, because Zackey Rahimi is anything but a responsible law abiding citizen. Make it make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under 21 gun ban ruled unconstitutional. Nice!


Case is Brown v ATF

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64934350/41/brown-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/

Judgement

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471.40.0.pdf

Nuts. That's just more Columbines in the making.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court is also taking up the Bump Stock ban case - https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/

Modifications to your gun to have a bump stock to let you fire off an entire 40 round extended magazine in 3 seconds is in NO WAY "responsible" or common sense. None.

And that rate of fire is 700-900 rounds per minute, same as a fully-auto machine gun, except with far less control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stiff penalties are a good idea.

What are you, 13 years old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can some Republican here explain to me how it is somehow "common sense" to allow a person like this to own a gun?

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

Police searched Rahimi’s home in January 2021. They say they found two firearms, a .45 Glock pistol and a .308 semi-automatic rifle, both of which were illegal due to the restraining order. A grand jury indicted Rahimi on charges of violating the federal law banning him from possessing firearms while under the restraining order. His public defender argued that the 1994 law was unconstitutional and that Rahimi kept the guns for self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

The case is US v. Rahimi, being argued in the Supreme Court. And there are numerous conservative groups lined up behind Rahimi to try and make sure this violent lunatic can continue to own a gun.

NRA, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Center for Human Liberty, Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Virginia Citizens Defense League, America’s Future, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and many other groups are lined up on the side of this lunatic and are dumping a huge amount of money into his case.

These groups CAN NO LONGER go around saying they support gun rights and gun ownership for responsible, law abiding citizens, because Zackey Rahimi is anything but a responsible law abiding citizen. Make it make sense.

Anyone? Still waiting for one of you 2A geniuses to explain how this lunatic is a "responsible law abiding gun owner" and how letting him own a gun is "common sense"